Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #58

1000 replies

nauticant · 11/12/2025 13:09

Judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6936ce28a6fc97b81e57436a/S_Peggie_v_Fife_Health_Board__Dr_Upton.pdf

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 February 2025 and was expected to last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It resumed on 16 July and the last day of evidence was 29 July 2025. It resumed again over 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing was live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6.

Links to previous threads #1 to #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 51: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 3 September 2025 to 1 October 2025
Thread 54: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54 28 September 2025 to 21 November 2025
Thread 55: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5447019-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-55 19 November 2025 to 8 December 2025
Thread 56: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56 8 December 2025 to 9 December 2025
Thread 57: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57 9 December 2025 to 11 December 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
58
PrettyDamnCosmic · 12/12/2025 10:56

MarieDeGournay · 12/12/2025 10:29

While I share your FFS! reaction to men allegedly becoming women, the point is that it is actually the law of the land: the Gender Recognition Act 2004 legislates for a man being legally a woman. So the tribunal/panel/judge have to accept that DrU claiming to be a woman is legally 'a thing'.

Worse still Furthermore, a man can insist he is a woman even if he is only on the path to 'transitioning' e.g. simply by changing his name and appearance to what the judge carefully referred to as ' generally regarded as feminine in style'. DrU who does not have a GRC can still claim the PC of gender reassignment.

So we all think it's completely daft, but 'in fairness to the judge' [how many times have I written that, and how many times have other posters produced quotes from the judgement to prove me wrongHmm] he has to go along with the concept of men being women, because the law has been daft enough to do so.

Upton isn't a woman because he doesn't have a GRC. Possessing the PC of gender reassignment doesn't make someone the opposite sex or gender They have to get a GRC & this includes a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria but AFAIK Upton does not claim to have gender dysphoria but to be "trans".

Mochudubh · 12/12/2025 10:57

Keeptoiletssafe · 12/12/2025 10:40

I often say ‘inclusive’ toilets are worse for everyone but least worst for healthy men.

They are the absolute opposite of inclusive.

I think the only definite advantage to women of inclusive toilets (if we're talking about the fully enclosed room with wash basin and hand drier) is that it allows for private clean up if necessary.

I have sought out the only self-contained toilet in the building for that purpose, even though it meant a further walk, with my jacket tied round my waist. So from that perspective I think it's good to have that option available but it shouldn't be the only or default option.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 12/12/2025 10:59

Madcats · 12/12/2025 10:55

Somebody on X (mrsSkys) has been playing about with Microsoft Copilot Chat (which is available for the Judiciary to use) and found it made a very similar misquote of Lee v Ashers Baking Co

I wonder how the panel members are feeling?

Can you link or cut and paste. People in other tribunals have read here so best to have everything on thread in case helpful for them to refer to? I’d be grateful.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 12/12/2025 11:00

prh47bridge · 12/12/2025 10:31

That is an excerpt from JR's submissions, not from the judgement. But no, I have not seen DLA briefings quoted in a judgement.

For what it is worth, I think the argument that there is no hierarchy of rights is being misused. In general it is true that there is no hierarchy. But in a single sex space, the rights of people of that biological sex clearly take precedence over the rights of anyone who is not of that biological sex.

There is a practical hierarchy as without the PC of sex there cannot be a PC of gender reassignment. Likewise the PC of sexual orientation depends on the PC of sex. The SC judgment made this very clear.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 12/12/2025 11:00

Archive link https://archive.ph/A8TGX

Chariothorses · 12/12/2025 11:00

Morning all!
Today's new complaint about the lying dishonest judgement is from the organisation 'Not all gays'. In the judgement the Judge says they are called 'Not For Gays'- bringing them into disrepute or something as they are FOR gays not against.

It's an attempt to discredit them for stating men who say they are women are still men and not lesbians and vv (or something like that)...ir speaking up for sex based rights and reality.
Has someone already posted this (not caught up yet)? If not, will find and copy the link...(may be a delay as am in and out today)...

nomas · 12/12/2025 11:02

whatwouldafeministdo · 12/12/2025 10:12

Agree.

Thing is, I actually know some working class americans who are Trump voters. Some of the nicest, most decent, human beings I've ever had the pleasure to meet. People who are there for others when they need it not with words like 'inclusion' and made up shite but with real things - food, money, hard graft.

Compare and contrast, someone like that - who'd give you the shirt off their back if you needed it - and Upton.

My recent observation is that the nice, decent, honest people appear to be the ones voting Trump / Farage. Gives you pause.

And to all the Upton's and Searles. Deeds not words. You can say you're progressive and inclusive until you're blue in the face (or hair) but if what we see is you trying to destroy a decent, hard-working nurse for wanting a single sex changing room then we disregard what you say.

Personally I really rate Kemi B and some of her shadow cabinet but they are saddled with the legacy and failures of the previous Tory governments, particularly Boris, which I think it's going to be very difficult to overcome. I hope they do though. Kemi as PM would be infinitely better than anyone else I can think of in politics at the moment.

Some of the nicest, most decent, human beings I've ever had the pleasure to meet. Compare and contrast, someone like that - who'd give you the shirt off their back if you needed it - and Upton.

To be fair, I don't think you could describe Peggie with those nice words either. There were shocking revelations about her racism in the hearing.

Regardless, even racists deserve SSS.

Chariothorses · 12/12/2025 11:04

here is the excerpt

EdithStourton · 12/12/2025 11:05

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 12/12/2025 10:15

However, surely if you are directly quoting from another document, and a judgement no less, you would always go directly to the source document and cut and paste from there? I do.

I am not an academic or a lawyer, in many ways a bear of little brain and haven't had to write anything in very many years, but I cannot understand why anyone, let alone a judge, would risk not doing this.

I make a habit of checking back to source when quoting, in part because I have come across academics who misquote (sometimes, it seems, with intent... but very hard to prove) and others who blindly quote them in their turn, so all sorts of BS is perpetuated in 'the academy', and eventually makes its way out into the consciousness of the wider public.

I always approach academic work by unknowns with great caution, until I have worked out if they're trustworthy (source correctly, get their quotes right or - if scientists - are clear about the limitations of their experiments).

Basically, I am cynical, and would expect a judge, of all people, to be cynical too.

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 12/12/2025 11:05

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 12/12/2025 10:23

Especially since everyone was watching and live tweeting. And half the barristers were up from London.

Maybe he gets away with total crap all the time. But you’d do it properly on this one.

He’s a poor lawyer, he’s a dodgy judge and he thinks Upton is feminine and credible. Hell mend him.

Maybe he's not actually able to do it properly, which begs many questions about previous judgements and how far things have to go before he is deemed bonkers and quietly shuffled off. Because we can't confront this kind of shit head on, oh dear me no.

But the only thing knocking in my head is all those abusers in churches who were just sent off to another parish because we can't confront that kind of shit head on either. Lets just keep on rearranging those deckchairs and hope nobody notices that the ship is sinking.

Chariothorses · 12/12/2025 11:06

oh it didn't post! Trying again- excerpt from judgement
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G7420J1XMAA6rcl?format=jpg&name=medium

and Not all gays statement and request the judge amends the errors
x.com/NotAllGays/status/1999407837898752491

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G7420J1XMAA6rcl?format=jpg&name=medium

EmmyFr · 12/12/2025 11:10

I don't know if Gillian Philip, who suffered at the hands of Kemp a few years back, sometimes lurks over here, but I want to send her all the flowers 🌸🌺🌻🌹🌷🌼💐🌸🌺🌻🌹🌷🌼💐🌸🌺🌻🌹🌷🌼💐 I can think of. And hope that she feels slightly vindicated.

MarieDeGournay · 12/12/2025 11:10

PrettyDamnCosmic · 12/12/2025 10:56

Upton isn't a woman because he doesn't have a GRC. Possessing the PC of gender reassignment doesn't make someone the opposite sex or gender They have to get a GRC & this includes a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria but AFAIK Upton does not claim to have gender dysphoria but to be "trans".

Upton wouldn't be a woman even if he had a GRC, in my opinion and yours!

The point I was making was that in the context of the tribunal, DrU had the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' under the EA2010, which does not require a GRC.

It is a fact that the tribunal had to take into account.
Isn't this the basis for the whole 'hierarchy of rights' mullarkey - both DrU and SP can claim to be protected under the EA2010?

I 100% agree with you that nothing could make DrU a woman, but unfortunately the law, incl the EA201, has muddied the waters.

Jacopo · 12/12/2025 11:12

Big Sond's got his heid in his honds.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/12/2025 11:13

Chariothorses · 12/12/2025 11:06

oh it didn't post! Trying again- excerpt from judgement
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G7420J1XMAA6rcl?format=jpg&name=medium

and Not all gays statement and request the judge amends the errors
x.com/NotAllGays/status/1999407837898752491

I find this error quite shocking and indicative of bias against gender critical views.

SionnachRuadh · 12/12/2025 11:14

I love that Roll On Friday has a "naughty judge" tag.

I know ETs don't have juries, but it's quite a thing that this is happening at the same time that The Laminator is restricting the right to jury trial. The whole point of jury trial is to protect the citizen against capricious judges. 50 years ago that might have been parodically reactionary judges, today it's likely to be parodically woke judges, and doesn't that tell a story about meeting the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's the same reason I always say democracy needs a certain amount of populism to function, so the political class have to listen to the voters and sometimes meet them halfway. Whereas if you listen to the high priests of the regime, the Neil Kinnocks and Rory Stewarts, they'll openly say the point of politics is for the elite to protect the voters from our own base instincts.

And this is how we get where we are.

EdithStourton · 12/12/2025 11:15

Jacopo · 12/12/2025 11:12

Big Sond's got his heid in his honds.

During the tribunal (and ETA that I'd actually copied the quote as it made me laugh so much at the time), Fifer said, 'oft, this one kid sair hurt Fife's case like comin aff a piece ae 1970s playgroon gear. Ironically the exact stuff that wid pit ye up the Vic.

Possibly he's like feeling that today.

Like many others, I have limited sympathy.

SionnachRuadh · 12/12/2025 11:17

MarieDeGournay · 12/12/2025 11:10

Upton wouldn't be a woman even if he had a GRC, in my opinion and yours!

The point I was making was that in the context of the tribunal, DrU had the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' under the EA2010, which does not require a GRC.

It is a fact that the tribunal had to take into account.
Isn't this the basis for the whole 'hierarchy of rights' mullarkey - both DrU and SP can claim to be protected under the EA2010?

I 100% agree with you that nothing could make DrU a woman, but unfortunately the law, incl the EA201, has muddied the waters.

Yes, and that's the problem with having the PC of GR but the definitions being fuzzy about what GR actually means.

On a common sense basis I agree with Helen Joyce that you can have a thing called certificated sex and that can apply to paperwork, but where bodies are concerned it's actual sex that matters.

Annoyingly it looks like we'll need trench warfare litigation to determine that.

RoyalCorgi · 12/12/2025 11:22

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 12/12/2025 10:37

That is the part that is catching my attention in a whole blizzard of wtafs.

The whole point and context of needing the statement that there is no hierarchy of rights in the EqA is to try and posit that a man with a gender identity has as much right to be in a women's single sex space as a woman does.

The SCJ quite clearly does not agree. And after a lot of wangling and invented gatekeeping, neither does Big Sond himself, as he's then clear that if the woman complains, the man must be immediately removed and separate provision must be sorted out.

Edited

I think that isn't quite right. The point is that a "sex-based right" is a sex-based right, ie it applies solely on the basis of sex.

Having a gender recognition certificate doesn't give you access to a sex-based right. In fact, having a gender recognition certificate isn't in itself a protected characteristic - gender reassignment is. You don't need a GRC to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It has already been legally settled that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't allow you access to spaces and activities reserved for the opposite sex.

Despite what the employment tribunal said, the issue at stake was nothing to do with the hierarchy of rights.

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 12/12/2025 11:31

mateysmum · 11/12/2025 22:02

Without going back to the actual evidence I can kind of see why Kemp felt Maya was making general points, but wasn't she brought in as a 'general' witness not on the actual events to which she was not a participant?
I really take issue with his assertion that it is only an opinion that people can readily determine sex. It is something that every member of the human race does every day from birth. Very small children can accurately determine sex. This whole 'it's all so complicated ' crap is straight out of the trans playbook and shows how the ideology has become so embedded in the judiciary that they cannot see another viewpoint is valid and that they are in fact demonstrating built in bias.
Having said all that I do think there are learnings for the future in focussing on the strict legal process and letting that speak without getting sidetracked into what could be interpreted as polemic.

The judge appeared to relish putting down Maya in the judgment. How delicious for her to have been the first one to point out the made up quotes

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 12/12/2025 11:32

EmmyFr · 12/12/2025 11:10

I don't know if Gillian Philip, who suffered at the hands of Kemp a few years back, sometimes lurks over here, but I want to send her all the flowers 🌸🌺🌻🌹🌷🌼💐🌸🌺🌻🌹🌷🌼💐🌸🌺🌻🌹🌷🌼💐 I can think of. And hope that she feels slightly vindicated.

When the dust settles maybe a forensic review and a Judicial compliant?

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 12/12/2025 11:34

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/12/2025 11:13

I find this error quite shocking and indicative of bias against gender critical views.

It’s not an error it’s literally what he thinks. It slipped out without him knowing but it’s being added to the pile with which his ass gets lit. 🔥

Wonder if the press will pick it up?

SionnachRuadh · 12/12/2025 11:35

RoyalCorgi · 12/12/2025 11:22

I think that isn't quite right. The point is that a "sex-based right" is a sex-based right, ie it applies solely on the basis of sex.

Having a gender recognition certificate doesn't give you access to a sex-based right. In fact, having a gender recognition certificate isn't in itself a protected characteristic - gender reassignment is. You don't need a GRC to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It has already been legally settled that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't allow you access to spaces and activities reserved for the opposite sex.

Despite what the employment tribunal said, the issue at stake was nothing to do with the hierarchy of rights.

The thing about a hierarchy of rights, surely, is that legal TRAs have for years been pulling this sleight of hand where having the PC of gender reassignment acts as a special trump card overriding the PC of sex.

This doesn't work with any other pair of PCs. One PC might clash with another, but none automatically beats another. Stonewall had a fair go at making sexual orientation automatically trump religion, but they didn't quite achieve that.

Lovaduck74 · 12/12/2025 11:39

EdithStourton · 12/12/2025 09:24

I've said elsewhere that I had to explain to a very dear friend, active for many years in local politics (and very well regarded), why people were voting for Farage. She said she thought it was because he gave the impression of really caring for them. In my view it goes so much deeper than that. The mainstream parties have completely abandoned the 'lower orders' - working class, lower middle - to benefits/low wages/high housing costs, while pushing through policies that were never discussed or actively voted against (trans BS, high immigration, massive housebuilding and development in some rural areas).

Now they will become aware of decisions like this one (with its glaring errors), and people arrested for daring to express their wrongthink.

And people like my friend will be horrified if Reform wins the next election, and will blame it on people being duped, misled, racist, intolerant, whatever, rather than seeing that state over-reach has been a massive factor.

Same with the Democrats in the US. They lost the last election far more than Trump won it.

Fuck knows who I will vote for. All the current shower abrogated their responsibility to the people who voted for them by failing to uphold manifesto commitments, and putting major changes (like ignoring women's rights) to the electorate.

Rant over.

I feel the same re: voting. I feel very strongly that women in the past did so much to fight for my right to vote. Who can I vote for now?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread